US Gov admits piracy figures are bogus

[Fishstick]

Article on Ars:

We've all seen the studies trumpeting massive losses to the US economy from piracy. One famous figure, used literally for decades by rightsholders and the government, said that 750,000 jobs and up to $250 billion a year could be lost in the US economy thanks to IP infringement. A couple years ago, we thoroughly debunked that figure. For years, Business Software Alliance reports on software piracy assumed that each illicit copy was a lost sale. And the MPAA's own commissioned study on movie piracy turned out to overstate collegiate downloading by a factor of three.

Can we trust any of these claims about piracy?


Full article HERE (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars).

[bluesjnr]

Aaaaarrrrrreally?

[Policenaut]

I saw this yesterday. It has been pretty obvious that the numbers media industries used were inflated and flawed. Importantly the government understand that since people who download illegally spend elsewhere in the economy money isn't just going into thin air and overall it has a much smaller impact than the industries were trying to portray. It still hurts smaller companies though. But a leaked copy of the new Wolverine movie means just about diddly for Fox. It still made $180 million in the box office and in fact people believe the leak might have helped Wolverine more than it hurt. http://my-life-as-a-blog.com/post/2010/01/03/Did-File-Sharing-Make-Wolverine-a-Hit.aspx

[INRM]

These claims have been the driving force behind the ACTA treaty...

[Brian-M]

I wonder what percentage of illegal downloads are done by people who wouldn't have purchased the movie or song (or an alternative movie/song in its place) if there wasn't an illegal copy freely available? These kinds of downloads have no effect on profit or employment figures of the movie and music industries.

I find it kind of strange how the music industry complains about people illegally downloading MP3s. In the 80's people recorded songs from the radio to listen to on their Walkman, and nobody cared. In th 00's people download songs from the internet to listen to on their iPod. Same thing, different era. But all of a sudden it's a problem.

[Rolfe]

Eric Flint has written quite a lot about this, presenting evidence that the wider publicity given to an author when some of his or her work is available for free actually boosts legitimate sales.

I suspect only a small percentage of illegal downloads are actually carried out by people who would have spent the money on the legitimate item if the download hadn't been avaliable.

Rolfe.

[Camillus]

Don't forget the percentage of people who download something that they already own but can't play because the copy protection is so draconian that the legitamately bought disc won't play in their computer. These people have bought the product, they just can't use it in all the places they want to.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I wonder what percentage of illegal downloads are done by people who wouldn't have purchased the movie or song (or an alternative movie/song in its place) if there wasn't an illegal copy freely available? These kinds of downloads have no effect on profit or employment figures of the movie and music industries.

I find it kind of strange how the music industry complains about people illegally downloading MP3s. In the 80's people recorded songs from the radio to listen to on their Walkman, and nobody cared. In th 00's people download songs from the internet to listen to on their iPod. Same thing, different era. But all of a sudden it's a problem.

Quoted for truth. Especially the last bit - though I believe that is explained as being compensated for by the levy on blank tapes....so put a levy on blank CDRs then and / or MP3 players?

[Fishstick]

Quoted for truth. Especially the last bit - though I believe that is explained as being compensated for by the levy on blank tapes....so put a levy on blank CDRs then and / or MP3 players?

In Belgium and some other european countries, there's already a levy on blank media like DVD-R's and CD-R's. Recently in Belgium harddrives, USB sticks and MP3 players have gotten their own levy (to much protest), and now there's talk of a levy on internet connections as well. All for piracy. This means you're paying IP 3 times before you've even pirated anything - all that achieves is that people are ending up feeling justified when they download something.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

In Belgium and some other european countries, there's already a levy on blank media like DVD-R's and CD-R's. Recently in Belgium harddrives, USB sticks and MP3 players have gotten their own levy (to much protest), and now there's talk of a levy on internet connections as well. All for piracy. This means you're paying IP 3 times before you've even pirated anything - all that achieves is that people are ending up feeling justified when they download something.

Indeed - that's certainly the risk. And fundamentally it seems unfair for the rest of us as it assumes copyright misuse of such media. However, in practical terms no-one seemed to mind much when it was applied to blank tapes and the level of levy was pretty small as I recall - less than the difference between different manufacturers products.

Thanks for the extra info though.

[Brian-M]

Quoted for truth. Especially the last bit - though I believe that is explained as being compensated for by the levy on blank tapes....so put a levy on blank CDRs then and / or MP3 players?

Wow, I hadn't known about the levy on blank tapes. Doing a bit of research, I can see that we had a blank tape levy over here for four years before the High Court struck it down in 1993 as an unfair tax law.

[Mirrorglass]

There's also the people who download stuff illegally, but end up buying the record or DVD if they really like it. I'll admit it probably isn't a lot of people, though. :)

[Ferguson]

A lot of the problem with piracy figures is that it's impossible to determine how much money is lost. I do contract work coding ipod games for people locally, and 'unlocked' copies usually show up in 2-3 days, and in the first few weeks usually about 85-90% of the leaderboard scores submitted are submitted from pirated copies. This number slowly goes down over time.
Counting those as "lost sales" would be completely disingenuous because it ignores how most pirates/torrenters work. For example, a lot of 'pirates' just browse the ipod cracking sites and download the week's latest torrent of 100 or so new iphone games. They play them for a little while, then download the next week's torrent. This greatly inflates % pirated as the vast majority of the 85+% playing the pirated game would have never bought or even heard of the game except for the fact that it was in some torrent they downloaded.
Also as a result, the worse the game does, the higher the piracy %, since the pirate downloads are mostly static. For simplicity say 100 people log on each week to download the new game torrent. If the game does 'well' and 200 people buy it, that's 33% "piracy rate." Whereas when the game does poorly and only sells 3 or 4 copies, it has an over 95% piracy rate, which will scare the bejeesus out of an uninformed developer. The pirates downloaded both games because they were free and in a torrent, but the bad app still would have only sold 3 or 4 copies.

Note I'm NOT excusing piracy, but calculating an amount of "losses" based on copies pirated is totally meaningless, because most pirates are downloading "just because." How many 13 year old's download Maya, 3DS Max, C4D, etc.? Plenty. How many are lost sales? ≈0.

[Damien Evans]

There's also the people who download stuff illegally, but end up buying the record or DVD if they really like it. I'll admit it probably isn't a lot of people, though. :)

Oh, Me Me!!

I torrented Hearts Jupiters Darling a few weeks ago, and I bought the cd this morning.

[Mirrorglass]

Oh, Me Me!!

I torrented Hearts Jupiters Darling a few weeks ago, and I bought the cd this morning.

Good for you! I knew there were still some good people in the world. :D

[WildCat]

However, in practical terms no-one seemed to mind much when it was applied to blank tapes and the level of levy was pretty small as I recall - less than the difference between different manufacturers products.

Thanks for the extra info though.
As someone who used to do a lot of tape trading before cd recorders existed I can tell you we were well aware of and angered by the tape tax.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I find it kind of strange how the music industry complains about people illegally downloading MP3s. In the 80's people recorded songs from the radio to listen to on their Walkman, and nobody cared. In th 00's people download songs from the internet to listen to on their iPod. Same thing, different era. But all of a sudden it's a problem.

You'll be one of those young people then, who don't remember the 'Home Taping is Killing Music' stickers on vinyl records in the early eighties or even the Betamax CaseWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_I nc.).

The Film/Music industry has always had a huge hair up it's arse about people using their product without paying, and seems unable to learn, no matter how many times new technology turns out to be a way for them to make even more money when they embrace it.

ETA I see 'Home Taping is Killing Music' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music) was a British campaign, so no wonder you hadn't heard of it.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I know several people who ended up pirating games because of DRM or broken disks.

[roger]

I know several people who ended up pirating games because they are thieves.

[/half troll-half serious]

[dudalb]

I know several people who ended up pirating games because they are thieves.

[/half troll-half serious]

SOmehow I think those who pirate games because of DRM issues are a minority.
What it amounts to is people want entertainment but don't want to pay for it,and I am getting tired of the justifications for piracy that are so common. They are just trying to make their stealing sound moral.

[moopet]

Indeed - that's certainly the risk. And fundamentally it seems unfair for the rest of us as it assumes copyright misuse of such media. However, in practical terms no-one seemed to mind much when it was applied to blank tapes and the level of levy was pretty small as I recall - less than the difference between different manufacturers products.

Thanks for the extra info though.

The biggest problem with this is that if you're not assuming that the media is used for a criminal act, then the levy is grossly unfair, and if you ARE assuming it's used for a criminal act, then what the hell are you doing allowing it to be sold at all?

[Corsair 115]

SOmehow I think those who pirate games because of DRM issues are a minority.

Propably so. But it is a non-zero percentage.

The key here is having accurate percentages on the illegal downloads being done—what percentage is by users who then go on to legally purchase the downloaded item; what percentage is by users who already legally own the downloaded item; what percentage is by users who would not have purchased the downloaded item even if the download had not been available; and lastly what percentage is by users who would have purchased the downloaded item and the download not been available.

That last one is what matters in regards to determining the actual financial losses from illegal downloading.

And until there is some accurate data on those percentages, any financial loss calculations are highly speculative.

[Ducky]

I think what bothers me most is that i'm a big fan of backups, and I rip my DVD's and CD's to a home server. I don't file share it, but by many standards I have read that's still pirating. Why am I (potentially) a pirate for protecting bits I have purchased?

[stilicho]

You'll be one of those young people then, who don't remember the 'Home Taping is Killing Music' stickers on vinyl records in the early eighties or even the Betamax CaseWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_I nc.).

ETA I see 'Home Taping is Killing Music' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music) was a British campaign, so no wonder you hadn't heard of it.

It was in Canada too. I had an indie record producer/promoter acquaintance back in the day and he produced a spoof sticker: '****** Music is Killing Music'.

[Policenaut]

Propably so. But it is a non-zero percentage.

The key here is having accurate percentages on the illegal downloads being done—what percentage is by users who then go on to legally purchase the downloaded item; what percentage is by users who already legally own the downloaded item; what percentage is by users who would not have purchased the downloaded item even if the download had not been available; and lastly what percentage is by users who would have purchased the downloaded item and the download not been available.

That last one is what matters in regards to determining the actual financial losses from illegal downloading.

And until there is some accurate data on those percentages, any financial loss calculations are highly speculative.

And obviously those numbers are unknown and will remain unknown because they are incalculable. Also it is easier and better (for the media industries) to simply rely on basic download stats (which likely don't even count all forms of pirated downloads) and say each download is lost money. It makes it look like they are losing a ton of money which is used to persuade the government to make laws favorable to them. They have realized that legal action against individuals is a waste of time, resources and massively bad pr. So instead of suing individuals they want laws to make ISPs the copyright police. Most won't do that of their own accord so they want laws passed that force ISPs to take action against the pirates instead of them. And the best way to get laws passed is to convince the government that they are losing boatloads of money and pirates are dealing some sort of death blow to their industry. It looks like the government isn't buying their sky is falling claims and even say pirates basically have a small impact on the economy as a whole. That makes sense since if you are a pirate and you didn't buy X you can buy Y with the money you didn't spend, you bought X but pirated X for some other reason, or you have no means to buy X (lets say you're under 14) so your download affects nothing. It certainly affects media companies but the degree is unknown and obviously the smaller the company the more it will hurt and the larger the less it will hurt. I would say the only people I feel are really screwed from pirating are individuals making things like apps, music or simple games that could be making a lot more money. But like I said it's probable that the smaller you are the more pirating hurts you and you can't get smaller than a one person company.

[pipelineaudio]

When it comes to tech issues, ARStechnica and wired are the equivalent of prisonplanet

[Dr. Keith]

SOmehow I think those who pirate games because of DRM issues are a minority.
What it amounts to is people want entertainment but don't want to pay for it,and I am getting tired of the justifications for piracy that are so common. They are just trying to make their stealing sound moral.

Agreed, but that is not the whole story.

There is a certain "convenience" aspect to all of this. If you make a legitimate copy more convenient than a pirate copy then most people will go legitimate.

The problem is that RIAA has focused more on making pirate copies inconvenient than on making legitimate copies convenient.

In contrast, Apple has been working to make legitimate copies more convenient while downplaying any pirate issues.

A good book to pull you back form the specifics so you can think more about the big picture is The Pirate's Dilemma.

[Dr. Keith]

I think what bothers me most is that i'm a big fan of backups, and I rip my DVD's and CD's to a home server. I don't file share it, but by many standards I have read that's still pirating. Why am I (potentially) a pirate for protecting bits I have purchased?

US law allows for backups, but it is not a broad exception.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Since when did the victims of a crime have to justify and quantify how much damage was really done to them and then have their overestimates used as a justification for the initial crime?

Does it really matter whether downloads cost the economy 5 cents or 5 billion dollars?

If people want to download then download, but at least be honest that the motivations are that they want something without paying for it and they really don't give a damn if the artist/industry suffers or not.

[Ducky]

US law allows for backups, but it is not a broad exception.

I'm skeptical that the RIAA or MPAA would think so, given that what I rip goes on a share that feeds multiple media center computers hooked up to TV's in my house. I'm cynical enough to think they'd construe that into file sharing.

[dudalb]

I am not denying the The RIAA and MPAA have been extremly heavy handed in their prosecutions.
The emphasis should be on stopping somebody who is DISTRIBUTING illegal stuff. The guy making backups for his own use should be left alone.

[Policenaut]

Since when did the victims of a crime have to justify and quantify how much damage was really done to them and then have their overestimates used as a justification for the initial crime?

Does it really matter whether downloads cost the economy 5 cents or 5 billion dollars?

If people want to download then download, but at least be honest that the motivations are that they want something without paying for it and they really don't give a damn if the artist/industry suffers or not.

Uh the victim always has to state exactly what the crime was. Lying and saying the crime is worse than what actually happened is illegal in court. Also who here was using their overestimates as justification for pirating? I don't see anyone saying that.

Also as it has been shown just in this thread many people pirate for reasons other than to get something for free such as circumventing draconian DRM on a product they already bought.

[Brian-M]

ETA I see 'Home Taping is Killing Music' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music) was a British campaign, so no wonder you hadn't heard of it.

True, but I probably wouldn't have been aware of it anyway. I was very young in the eighties (born in '78), and only ever had a small number of records, bought second-hand, because my allowance wasn't enough for me to be willing to waste it buying music.

I mostly listened to the radio, or songs recorded from the radio. But since I wouldn't have gone down to th record shop and purchased a copy of the song anyway, my recording songs from the radio didn't cost the music industry a thing.

I don't think I've ever downloaded an MP3, though. My MP3 collection consists entirely of music from CDs I own (or owned at one stage).

And while keeping an MP3 from a CD I no longer own may be technically illegal, it doesn't cost the music industry a thing because if I deleted it, I wouldn't go out and buy more music to replace it.

[fuelair]

I wonder what percentage of illegal downloads are done by people who wouldn't have purchased the movie or song (or an alternative movie/song in its place) if there wasn't an illegal copy freely available? These kinds of downloads have no effect on profit or employment figures of the movie and music industries.

I find it kind of strange how the music industry complains about people illegally downloading MP3s. In the 80's people recorded songs from the radio to listen to on their Walkman, and nobody cared. In th 00's people download songs from the internet to listen to on their iPod. Same thing, different era. But all of a sudden it's a problem.and, in the late 50s, early 60s many of us were taping from the radio or phonographs songs to play on portable tape recorders.

[rjh01]

Reading this thread there should be place you can go to that allows you to download as much as you want. You just pay a flat fee for the rights. That way the artists get money and the people get the games or the music they want.

[Mirrorglass]

Reading this thread there should be place you can go to that allows you to download as much as you want. You just pay a flat fee for the rights. That way the artists get money and the people get the games or the music they want.

Spotify and similar services are pretty close to that idea, actually. There have been quite a few problems with actually getting the money to the artists, but this probably is where the industry is going.

At the moment, though, you'd have to make the flat fee pretty huge for the really big name artists to make enough money from a service like this that they'd actually want to replace record-selling with it.

[Policenaut]

Microsoft is already doing this with ZunePass though only for music. Also it has limits (only works with Zune among other technical details) and is more a subscription for unlimited "forever" rentals (until you stop subscribing of course) than owning (though you do get to keep 10 songs a month).

[Gate2501]

I recently ran into some crazy DRM on a legit copy of Dragon Age: Origins(I do pirate a quite a bit, but this one I own). None of my DLC was showing up on the map, and after doing some research I found that it is a form of DRM; I had to connect to a Bioware server or some-such to authorize the DLC I had bought at the time of playing. I don't know why my game wasn't doing it, but whatever...

I downloaded a crack.

My Mass Effect 2(also Bioware) DLC all worked fine, but I got that game through Steam.

I feel zero guilt for pirating games/music/movies, but platforms like Steam are turning me into a paying customer(well, what I can afford at least), because of the convenience they offer.

[MRC_Hans]

Back in the eighties, software piracy was a real loss. In the early days of proliferation of personal computers, even large corporations were routinely purchasing a single copy of some software and distributing it internally to all users. Been doing it myself. There was little or no copy protection, or other licensing limitations. At some point people realized that you had to pay for each user, and honest organizations cleaned up their act. I remember buying numerous copies of software that my department was using, and simply putting them on the shelf, unopened, since they were allready installed on all the computers.

That said, even then figures were bloated, because once each copy had to be paid for, a lot of the nice-to-have stuff was no longer installed.

Hans

[Brian-M]

I think music companies should offer free MP3s of their music for anyone to download -- low sample rate mono MP3s, maybe with a very short beep at the end to remind the listener that they're listening to the free version. A high-quality stereo version would be available for purchase by people who like the music.

This would be a great way for people to be able to listen to unfamiliar songs before decide whether or not they want to pay for the high-quality version, making it a good form of advertising. People who can't afford to buy it could build collections of the low-quality MP3s for free. And the low quality versions would have a much smaller file size, reducing internet traffic.

[quarky]

I owe Joni Mitchell some money.

In fact, I can't remember ever paying for any music.

People shouldn't even be allowed to lend a record to a friend.

(I'm going to turn myself in.)

[pipelineaudio]

I am not denying the The RIAA and MPAA have been extremly heavy handed in their prosecutions.
The emphasis should be on stopping somebody who is DISTRIBUTING illegal stuff. The guy making backups for his own use should be left alone.

And in fact always has been. Though many sites claim otherwise, can you find a case where the RIAA sued someone for making a backup?

The dishonesty of the anti IP movement is rife with examples like the headline here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

"Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use"

And as is so often the case, reading a bit into it, you'll see personal use had nothing to do with it, and the charge was distributing copyrighted material to a filesharing site

[stilicho]

I think music companies should offer free MP3s of their music for anyone to download -- low sample rate mono MP3s, maybe with a very short beep at the end to remind the listener that they're listening to the free version. A high-quality stereo version would be available for purchase by people who like the music.

This would be a great way for people to be able to listen to unfamiliar songs before decide whether or not they want to pay for the high-quality version, making it a good form of advertising. People who can't afford to buy it could build collections of the low-quality MP3s for free. And the low quality versions would have a much smaller file size, reducing internet traffic.

Give it all away for nothing.

The thing is, you can do what everyone does and spend your money on a Casio (do they make those any more?) or a pawn shop guitar plus a bunch of cool effects pedals and make your own music. It's really not that difficult.

Music entertainment companies aren't selling music because that part is free (or at least it's really really cheap). They're selling the imagery and paraphernalia. It would be a better business model to give away the artist's CD and deduct the contribution margin from the clothing line.

[commandlinegamer]

make your own music. It's really not that difficult.

Indeed. With Autotune you too can sound like Britney Spears.

[MRC_Hans]

I think music companies should offer free MP3s of their music for anyone to download -- low sample rate mono MP3s, maybe with a very short beep at the end to remind the listener that they're listening to the free version. A high-quality stereo version would be available for purchase by people who like the music.

This would be a great way for people to be able to listen to unfamiliar songs before decide whether or not they want to pay for the high-quality version, making it a good form of advertising. People who can't afford to buy it could build collections of the low-quality MP3s for free. And the low quality versions would have a much smaller file size, reducing internet traffic.That could be one way, but from what I hear, they are contemplating a different path: The full quality version can be downloaded for free, but it can only be played from the computer, it cannot be copied, and it will only play a limited number of times. If you like it, you can pay for a version that can be burnt on a CD and which has no time limit.

Of course, there will be cracks for this, but ig the price is reasonable, most users will pay.

Hans

[Brian-M]

Of course, there will be cracks for this, but ig the price is reasonable, most users will pay.


A very simple crack... Click "record" on your computer's audio recorder while playing the track.

Or, if they find some way of disabling the audio recorder while the music is being played, run a cable from the audio out of one computer to the audio in of another computer, and then record.

No amount of copy protection can prevent people from re-recording the raw audio output of a track/cd.

[quarky]

If I really want to hear a song for free, and it requires 49 clicks as well as some pop-up adds, I'd be willing to cough up 50 cents instead.

I pay when the hassle of not paying becomes cost-ineffective.

Meanwhile, the warning we are forced to endure with a rented dvd, and the maximum fine for copying it, hasn't changed in years...making it a bargain, in terms of fines and such.

I can barely take it seriously. There should be cost-of-living adjustments in these penalties. The $250,000 threat gets more hollow everyday.
I should get paid for making an illegal copy of a movie, especially if it sucks.

[rjh01]

Another way to sell music is to sell MP3s on CDs. This could be used for artists that are retiring or retired. Buy their entire collection on one CD. This would save people from downloading either legal or illegal copies.

[asmodean]

I know several people who ended up pirating games because of DRM or broken disks.

I came close with the 2nd expansion to NWN2. I bought original game, worked flawlessly, and was fun. I bought first expansion, it also worked well, and was fun. Then I bought the second... And the disk just would not read on my main box (laptop swalloved it happily enough, so the DVD was OK). After much cajoling (and having to reset my dvd drive back to DMA mode after it got set to PIO-mode after every try) I got it to install. But no longer.

Visiting Obsidians website didn't give much, neither did visiting Ataris. Some error hunting thread gave:

1) Do you have a SCSI drive? Then you're SOL. the DRM don't like SCSI-devices (seems most emulator SW mounts virtual devices as SCSI units).
2) Have DVD-RW unit? (I did). Same there, prolly SOL, especially if its a Plextor. DRM do not like combo readers/burners.

Advice for the 2 above problems. "Buy new HW". Sorry, not gonna go buy unescessary HW because of some overzealous DRm scheme.

Going further in the hints post.

3) Buy it as CD-ROM! Apparently the DRM system wasn't that picky when it came to CD. Not much an option though, having already bought the damn thing. Sheel out twice for the game due to.. overzealous DRM? Not an option

4) Buy it from D2Drive, no disks to get stuck in the DRM system! Which is pretty much the same as 3).

Luckily I found a workaround that did not involve having to go to some spyware infested pirate site and download a no-cd crack.

But, yeah. It got me turned off any game using that particular DRM scheme again.

[asmodean]

I think what bothers me most is that i'm a big fan of backups, and I rip my DVD's and CD's to a home server. I don't file share it, but by many standards I have read that's still pirating. Why am I (potentially) a pirate for protecting bits I have purchased?

Don't think you'll be branded a pirate, but it would be a violation of the DMCA which prohibits ANY circumvention of copy protection mechanism regardless of reason. Think EU is working on, or have already implemented, similar laws.

[Wrathernaut]

Oh, Me Me!!

I torrented Hearts Jupiters Darling a few weeks ago, and I bought the cd this morning.

Ditto for Eve 6 and Cowboy Mouth. - Partly because it's getting hard to find CDs out there anymore - only way to get uncompressed audio for sure.

Plus, I buy plenty of merchandise and every new album they put out (still waiting for the opportunity, Eve 6...)

[ThatSoundAgain]

When it comes to tech issues, ARStechnica and wired are the equivalent of prisonplanet

You must be joking.

I owe Joni Mitchell some money.

In fact, I can't remember ever paying for any music.

People shouldn't even be allowed to lend a record to a friend.

(I'm going to turn myself in.)

Most my CDs prohibit "copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting". Says so right on the disc.

It's preceded by an "all rights reserved" bit. Sometimes I get the impression that they're serious about the "all" part of that to the extent that I'm opening myself up to litigation by playing the thing.

[Wrathernaut]

Another way to sell music is to sell MP3s on CDs. This could be used for artists that are retiring or retired. Buy their entire collection on one CD. This would save people from downloading either legal or illegal copies.

Some of us demand uncompressed audio. I'll pay near full price for 320kbps MP3s, but the only thing worth a CD's price is uncompressed audio - FLAC.

[Wrathernaut]

Don't think you'll be branded a pirate, but it would be a violation of the DMCA which prohibits ANY circumvention of copy protection mechanism regardless of reason. Think EU is working on, or have already implemented, similar laws.

DCMA - or the "Yes, it is legal for you to drive the car you bought here to your house, however, going over the speed bump to leave our parking lot is illegal"-law.

[Policenaut]

http://www.dga.org/news/pr-images/2010/Joint-submission-re-IPEC.pdf

Take a look at the US media industry's proposal. Simply amazing.

[Robo Sapien]

Metallica would not approve. Fire bad!

[cornsail]

They are just trying to make their stealing sound moral.

You mean copyright infringement, not stealing.

[cornsail]

I don't really see what copyright laws add to our society. It basically amounts to people not being able to use the products they buy as they see fit. There will always be people making high quality music and software even if they don't earn a living from it.

[quixotecoyote]

I don't really see what copyright laws add to our society. It basically amounts to people not being able to use the products they buy as they see fit. There will always be people making high quality music and software even if they don't earn a living from it.

Society has decided that maintaining professional quality music & software is more desirable than having no professionals and leaving it to hobbyists.

I think that's reasonable.

[Almo]

And while keeping an MP3 from a CD I no longer own may be technically illegal, it doesn't cost the music industry a thing because if I deleted it, I wouldn't go out and buy more music to replace it.

BUT the person who now has your disc won't buy a new one. That IS a lost sale, if they would have bought it otherwise.

But this is only really a lost sale if you would have never listened to it again. If not, you'd have sold/given it away anyway, costing a sale.

I don't really see what copyright laws add to our society. It basically amounts to people not being able to use the products they buy as they see fit. There will always be people making high quality music and software even if they don't earn a living from it.

I would not be working on creating games if there were no remuneration in it. The games I make personally are quite good, and those would be lost were it not for the salary I earn for making them.

[Brian-M]

I don't really see what copyright laws add to our society. It basically amounts to people not being able to use the products they buy as they see fit. There will always be people making high quality music and software even if they don't earn a living from it.


Copyright laws exist so that the people who do the work to make a book, song, movie, ect, can can get paid for their work. Imagine what would happen without it. Somebody starts a band, invents songs, sell a few self-recorded CDs. Someone in the music industry gets hold one of the CDs and starts selling millions of copies, and the band that did the work doesn't see a cent from any of these sales.

Originally copyright laws were invented to be applied to books, and at that time only large companies would have the resources to affordably produce copies. The same applies to recorded music, before audiotape was invented. So originally, in practice, copyright laws only applied to businesses and companies. But now everybody has the capacity to reproduce electronic copies of books, music and movies with ease, the laws apply to us too, because the law doesn't distinguish between a natural person and a legal entity (such as a corporation).

Think of it like this...

Imagine you have a small band, and you start selling home-made CDs of your music, to try and make a little money. But someone buys a CD, and makes a few dozen copies of it, and gives these copies to their friends, many of which make more copies which they give to more of their friends, and so on.

Next thing you know, the CD that you spent six months working on, and thousands of dollars for professional studio time and editing to create, isn't making you any money because everyone is getting copies for free. You've actually made a huge loss financially, not to mention the hundreds of hours of work that you won't get any money from. So you and your band never make another CD, because it's not worth the time and oney to make.

What kind of laws would you come up to prevent this from happening?

[cornsail]

Society has decided that maintaining professional quality music & software is more desirable than having no professionals and leaving it to hobbyists.

I think that's reasonable.

Society decided? Not so sure that's a fair statement.

The difference between a professional and a hobbyist is just that one gets payed. It doesn't mean that the quality of the product is necessarily inferior. Professional musicians didn't start out as professionals.

[cornsail]

Copyright laws exist so that the people who do the work to make a book, song, movie, ect, can can get paid for their work. Imagine what would happen without it. Somebody starts a band, invents songs, sell a few self-recorded CDs. Someone in the music industry gets hold one of the CDs and starts selling millions of copies, and the band that did the work doesn't see a cent from any of these sales.

I agree with intellectual property protections as far as sales and plagiarism go (except in the case of medical products).


Think of it like this...

Imagine you have a small band, and you start selling home-made CDs of your music, to try and make a little money. But someone buys a CD, and makes a few dozen copies of it, and gives these copies to their friends, many of which make more copies which they give to more of their friends, and so on.

Next thing you know, the CD that you spent six months working on, and thousands of dollars for professional studio time and editing to create, isn't making you any money because everyone is getting copies for free. You've actually made a huge loss financially, not to mention the hundreds of hours of work that you won't get any money from. So you and your band never make another CD, because it's not worth the time and oney to make.

What kind of laws would you come up to prevent this from happening?

None. Personally, although I would never spend thousands of dollars on studio time without a better reason than selling home-made CDs, I'd be thrilled if that happened to me. As unrealistic as that scenario is. To get such a positive reception to my music and so much exposure would be a great accomplishment. It also would make it much easier to get more and better gigs. The vast majority of musicians do not make a living through CD sales, they do it through teaching and gigs.

I've dabbled in amature music and the idea that time spent making music is somehow wasted if I'm not payed for it is bizarre to me. Making music is its own reward. It's a bigger reward if it's heard and appreciated by others.

[quixotecoyote]

Society decided? Not so sure that's a fair statement.

The difference between a professional and a hobbyist is just that one gets payed. It doesn't mean that the quality of the product is necessarily inferior. Professional musicians didn't start out as professionals.

It's also that the professional can devote time and resources to the project that the hobbyist cannot. It also involves a qualitative change of dedication when what you tinker with in the evenings becomes your full time job.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Society decided? Not so sure that's a fair statement.

The difference between a professional and a hobbyist is just that one gets payed. It doesn't mean that the quality of the product is necessarily inferior. Professional musicians didn't start out as professionals.

And thus has time to make great music. It's a pretty simple concept.

[cornsail]

Indeed. But I don't think the difference would be all that big. And anyway, bands could still go professional and they would still have incentive to make recordings to increase exposure and in turn the ability to profit from live shows (not to mention the non-monetary incentives).

[cornsail]

And thus has time to make great music. It's a pretty simple concept.

*And thus has more time to make great music.

I'm not sure how many would go professional in the first place if making great music required not having a job.

[quixotecoyote]

*And thus has more time to make great music.

I'm not sure how many would go professional in the first place if making great music required not having a job.

I've done both the self-produced album (many years ago) and video game hobbyism. I don't think you quite grasp the time commitment of either one, especially if you're going to create something that doesn't sound like it was recorded in a garage or look like it was made from sprites, MSpaint, and the spiritual residue of a swarm of angry dead insects.

[Ducky]

Indeed. But I don't think the difference would be all that big. And anyway, bands could still go professional and they would still have incentive to make recordings to increase exposure and in turn the ability to profit from live shows (not to mention the non-monetary incentives).

Protip: Bands themselves aren't the ones that make their music sound great on the album. As a sound engineer professionally, I have heard very few bands ever be able to self-produce anything that isn't crap-sounding no matter how genius the content is to listen to live.

As a touring musician making 10 bucks an album out of the back of my van after every show, I know you make **** from gigs. Absolute ****. The money is made peddling your cd's and t-shirts, etc.

So no, the difference is amazing and huge.

[cornsail]

I've done both the self-produced album (many years ago) and video game hobbyism. I don't think you quite grasp the time commitment of either one, especially if you're going to create something that doesn't sound like it was recorded in a garage or look like it was made from sprites, MSpaint, and the spiritual residue of a swarm of angry dead insects.

My mom (not a professional musician) made an album along with some musician friends. They used a studio. Didn't cost an arm and a leg. Sounded very good.

You say I don't grasp the time commitment, yet you still did it? What I grasp is that many people are very dedicated to their hobbies.

[erlando]

I recently ran into some crazy DRM on a legit copy of Dragon Age: Origins(I do pirate a quite a bit, but this one I own). None of my DLC was showing up on the map, and after doing some research I found that it is a form of DRM; I had to connect to a Bioware server or some-such to authorize the DLC I had bought at the time of playing. I don't know why my game wasn't doing it, but whatever...


Ubisoft is currently implementing their "always-online" DRM in their games. You have to be online to play - even if it's single player. Lose your internet connection and it's bye-bye. No more gaming for you.

This is turning a lot of otherwise paying customers toward piracy.

[cornsail]

Protip: Bands themselves aren't the ones that make their music sound great on the album. As a sound engineer professionally, I have heard very few bands ever be able to self-produce anything that isn't crap-sounding no matter how genius the content is to listen to live.

Sound engineers aren't unaffordable, they generally are included in the price of studio rental time which is really not that bad.

As a touring musician making 10 bucks an album out of the back of my van after every show, I know you make **** from gigs. Absolute ****. The money is made peddling your cd's and t-shirts, etc.

Okay, I was thinking more of people who play local gigs than touring, but I can see why sales make more sense doing that. The local gig players I've known make more money from giving lessons, but playing live obviously adds enjoyment and variety.

So no, the difference is amazing and huge.

Well let's face it, becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is, except for the very small percentage who manage to make it big. Yet there is still an overwhelming amount of awesome music out there.

[Ducky]

Sound engineers aren't unaffordable, they generally are included in the price of studio rental time which is really not that bad.



Okay, I was thinking more of people who play local gigs than touring, but I can see why sales make more sense doing that. The local gig players I've known make more money from giving lessons, but playing live obviously adds enjoyment and variety.



Well let's face it, becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is, except for the very small percentage who manage to make it big. Yet there is still an overwhelming amount of awesome music out there.

I absolutely disagree. Independent musicians can make money and it is a viable career choice - I have many friends doing this now that make good money. But it takes the ability to be able to make money off your IP.

[cornsail]

Really, they make most of their living through CD sales? That surprises me.

[Rolfe]

Think about the commitment from classical musicians required to perfect their art. The innumerable hours of practice, the college degrees, the sheer perfectionism and dedication. Amateurs just aren't in that league. If you can't make money as a professional classical musician, that level of commitment just ain't going to happen.

Rolfe.

[Ducky]

Really, they make most of their living through CD sales? That surprises me.

They make a large part of it through that, yes. Why does it surprise you that the sale of CD's is much larger than being paid for gigs? I made far more money on CD sales than I ever did getting paid to play a bar or a hall.

[cornsail]

I take back "becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is", I'm sure that was an exaggerated statement on second thought and I'm not exactly sure how I was defining "professional musician".

They make a large part of it through that, yes. Why does it surprise you that the sale of CD's is much larger than being paid for gigs? I made far more money on CD sales than I ever did getting paid to play a bar or a hall.

Well it'd surprise me if very many could sell hundreds of CDs per week or something amounting to that yearly over a significant portion of time.

Think about the commitment from classical musicians required to perfect their art. The innumerable hours of practice, the college degrees, the sheer perfectionism and dedication. Amateurs just aren't in that league. If you can't make money as a professional classical musician, that level of commitment just ain't going to happen.

I don't think that's an easy way to make a living since orchestras are often seasonal. You might get a good hourly earn, but not a sufficient amount of hours. I could be wrong though. However, I think it's safe to say that most classical musicians don't make a living through CD sales? My uncle is a classical pianist btw and he mainly just does lessons now.

[Fishstick]

They make a large part of it through that, yes. Why does it surprise you that the sale of CD's is much larger than being paid for gigs? I made far more money on CD sales than I ever did getting paid to play a bar or a hall.

Out of (non-gotcha) curiousity, do you also sell MP3's on a site, or only CD's? With a lot of lesser-known groups that I end up buying music from I'd rather purchase some FLAC's or MP3's than another CD i'd end up ripping anyway.

ETA: Also what genre do you play, maybe I'd like it!

[Ducky]

I take back "becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is", I'm sure that was an exaggerated statement on second thought and I'm not exactly sure how I was defining "professional musician".



Well it'd surprise me if very many could sell hundreds of CDs per week or something amounting to that yearly over a significant portion of time.



I think you would be surprised at how many CD's many independent artists could move a month if they were gigging heavily. I don't have any hard numbers for other bands, but one I worked with re-ordered sets of 5000 CD's three or four times before we broke up (over a time period of about a year.) You don't have to sell hundreds per month to make a good living. at $1 a CD and whatever costs of recording you've spent (studio time and mastering), you often can reclaim your losses quickly enough in the first pressing to pay for the second pressing and begin to turn profit. If you could move 500 CD's at 10 bucks a piece in two months, you do the math. Add supplemental income from gigging (which may or may not be very much depending on where you can get booked) and other IP you sell (shirts, stickers etc.) and you don't do half bad. At the time I was active, it was also pretty easy to get a deal with Amazon for warehouse/sales of a CD.

Out of (non-gotcha) curiousity, do you also sell MP3's on a site, or only CD's? With a lot of lesser-known groups that I end up buying music from I'd rather purchase some FLAC's or MP3's than another CD i'd end up ripping anyway.

ETA: Also what genre do you play, maybe I'd like it!

I haven't been actively selling CD's or recording since 2002. Back then we did not sell mp3's because it hadn't been the market it is today. Today we'd have set up an iTunes partnership (or Jamendo, etc.)

I have been in many genre's of bands over the years. The albatross of a solo album I have been working on since 2003 (I was sidetracked by some medical issues and a day job to pay for my insurance) is loosely defined as funk rock I guess.

[Steve]

Think about the commitment from classical musicians required to perfect their art. The innumerable hours of practice, the college degrees, the sheer perfectionism and dedication. Amateurs just aren't in that league. If you can't make money as a professional classical musician, that level of commitment just ain't going to happen.

Rolfe.

And yet classical orchestras were viable for hundreds of years prior to the invention of recording. Their income came from live performances and teaching, similar to most classical musicians today. I doubt that orchestra (not soloists) members earn a very high percentage of their income from the royalties from orchestral recordings.

[quixotecoyote]

My mom (not a professional musician) made an album along with some musician friends. They used a studio. Didn't cost an arm and a leg. Sounded very good.

You say I don't grasp the time commitment, yet you still did it? What I grasp is that many people are very dedicated to their hobbies.

Yeah, we were dedicated to our hobby, but it was still a hobby to do in our spare time. None of us were as good as we would have been if we spent the 40 a week at schools/jobs on the craft instead. It also drastically limited the number of practice sessions, recording sessions, performances, and tours we could do. It also meant that the band was going to be a short-term grouping because we couldn't afford to stick together rather than move for work/education opportunities.

Now, you might be happy getting lower quality/quantity hobby music in exchange for being able to legally make copies without permission, but lets not pretend there isn't a tradeoff.

This is even more apparent when it comes to video games and movies that require infrastructure, large teams of people, and years of dedication to get current levels of quality. Now I enjoy a good hobby game as much as the next guy, but the quality doesn't compare.

[rjh01]

And yet classical orchestras were viable for hundreds of years prior to the invention of recording. Their income came from live performances and teaching, similar to most classical musicians today. I doubt that orchestra (not soloists) members earn a very high percentage of their income from the royalties from orchestral recordings.

Not sure what your point is however before the 20th century there was a lot less choice of entertainment. There were no movies, radio, TV. So to listen to music you had to go to an orchestra.

[Steve]

Not sure what your point is however before the 20th century there was a lot less choice of entertainment. There were no movies, radio, TV. So to listen to music you had to go to an orchestra.

In the context of the thread - piracy - I took Rolfe's post to imply that professional orchestra musicians had to rely on income from recording sales to provide the level of income that their commitment, training, etc. required. In this context my point was that I did not think that was the case, or at least much less so than for musicians performing more contemporary types of music. I admit that I may have misunderstood Rolfe's post.

[cornsail]

Now, you might be happy getting lower quality/quantity hobby music in exchange for being able to legally make copies without permission, but lets not pretend there isn't a tradeoff.

I'm not sure, but I think many could still be professional musicians without IP protections.

This is even more apparent when it comes to video games and movies that require infrastructure, large teams of people, and years of dedication to get current levels of quality. Now I enjoy a good hobby game as much as the next guy, but the quality doesn't compare.

Yeah it's more true in regard to movies and especially games. If movies didn't use such ridiculously extravagant budgets, including things like paying lead actors tens of millions of dollars then they'd have a much easier time making a profit in the theaters. Yeah the quality may suffer a little, but reliance on special effects and explosions rarely makes a film good anyway. Look at Star Wars I-III. There are trade offs, but I'd rather there be more rather than less freedom when it comes to information exchange. Times change.

[Ducky]

I'm not sure, but I think many could still be professional musicians without IP protections.



Yeah it's more true in regard to movies and especially games. If movies didn't use such ridiculously extravagant budgets, including things like paying lead actors tens of millions of dollars then they'd have a much easier time making a profit in the theaters. Yeah the quality may suffer a little, but reliance on special effects and explosions rarely makes a film good anyway. Look at Star Wars I-III. There are trade offs, but I'd rather there be more rather than less freedom when it comes to information exchange. Times change.

I don't think having more freedoms when it comes to information exchange requires the destruction of the concept of IP or artists not being paid for their IP.

[cornsail]

It doesn't "require" it, but reducing the extent and severity of IP laws would definitely increase freedom when it comes to information exchange. I would draw the line at plagiarism.

[Psi Baba]

And in fact always has been. Though many sites claim otherwise, can you find a case where the RIAA sued someone for making a backup?

The dishonesty of the anti IP movement is rife with examples like the headline here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

"Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use"

And as is so often the case, reading a bit into it, you'll see personal use had nothing to do with it, and the charge was distributing copyrighted material to a filesharing site
Personal use had nothing to do with it? Really? When I read the article, I saw this:
Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

[SnidelyW]

So, if I post something here someone thinks is worthy of downloading, according to the music industry, I should be paid something as it is a product of the 'creative process', correct? Hey, I may have to live on the proceeds from my quotes (Not likely, but one can dream). However, there is nothing to prevent me taking my quote act on the road, and fill concert halls to listen to them, right?

So, taking that a teeny step further, any creative process downloaded off the internet should be purchased, right?

[SnidelyW]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_351844bd096d61ea90.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19784)

[cornsail]

I can't imagine what incentive you'd have to post otherwise